JoBo@feddit.uk 6 months ago
Excluding purely personal beef, the purpose of a boycott is to apply pressure. You do it until the entity accepts responsibility and changes their behaviour. Forgiveness is an interactive process which requires both parties; it can’t run to a timetable.
snacks@feddit.uk 6 months ago
blimey thats an answer!
So, if mcdonalds apologised, that means its over? Im not sure thats right, that means theres no consequences.
JoBo@feddit.uk 6 months ago
Forgiveness does not automatically follow from an apology, no.
snacks@feddit.uk 6 months ago
right so it dosnt end when they apologise and change behaviour. I agree! I think you can have a rule of thumb which says 2 years for hosing down a homeless person. Its more for the transgessor than the person getting the hosing, so there is a basic decent contract which says they wont be seeing a chunk of people for two whole years.
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 6 months ago
What are you even talking about at this point…
JoBo@feddit.uk 6 months ago
Wut?
apis@beehaw.org 6 months ago
Only if one interprets an apology as a meaningful change of behaviour.
Depending on context, one might, I’d think that would be reserved for matters of simple human error, and even then I think one would still wish to see measures to prevent similar in future.
Hosing down a homeless person doesn’t fall into that category, being intentionally awful, and likely emerging from abusive or highly neglectful management practices. For things like this, one would be seeking changes which go to addressing the core of the offence.
In reality it is hard to assess whether reforms have been implemented, especially with huge multinationals that can deploy heavy PR campaigns, but I don’t know that anyone is going to cry if a boycott persists somewhat longer than is necessary.